2006 (4) TMI 550 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Validity of the transfer order and its impact on the situs of employment.
3. Legality of the dismissal of the respondent employee.
4. Jurisdiction of the Delhi Labour Authorities to entertain the dispute.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Appropriate Government
The primary issue raised by the petitioner was whether the Government of NCT of Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, given that the respondent No. 3's employment was transferred to Kanpur. The petitioner argued that the situs of employment had changed to Kanpur upon the transfer, and thus, the Delhi authorities lacked jurisdiction.

The court referred to the principles laid down in previous judgments, such as the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Paritosh Kumar Pal v. State of Bihar, the Division Bench pronouncement of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Siemens Limited v. Presiding Officer Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. These cases established that upon the issuance of a transfer order, the situs of employment changes to the place of transfer, and the appropriate Government is the one having jurisdiction over the new place of employment.

Issue 2: Validity of the Transfer Order and Its Impact on the Situs of Employment
The court examined the terms of the respondent No. 3's appointment letter, which explicitly stated that her job was transferable anywhere in India. The respondent No. 3 had accepted these terms without any objections. The court noted that the transfer order dated 5th July 2000 was issued due to service exigencies and was not challenged by the respondent No. 3. Instead, she requested accommodation in Delhi due to personal reasons, which were not accepted by the petitioner.

The court emphasized that the respondent No. 3's failure to comply with the transfer order and her subsequent absenteeism were grounds for disciplinary action. The inquiry and disciplinary proceedings were conducted at Kanpur, and the respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service based on these proceedings.

Issue 3: Legality of the Dismissal of the Respondent Employee
The court found that the dismissal of the respondent No. 3 was conducted following due process. The charge sheet, inquiry, and dismissal were all executed at Kanpur. The respondent No. 3 did not challenge the disciplinary proceedings or the findings of the inquiry officer. The court held that the dismissal was valid and legally justified.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Delhi Labour Authorities to Entertain the Dispute
The court held that the mere receipt of the dismissal order in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Labour Authorities. The principles of territorial jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act are based on the situs of employment and control over the employee's services. Since the respondent No. 3's employment was transferred to Kanpur, the appropriate Government to entertain the dispute was the one having jurisdiction over Kanpur.

The court quashed the order of reference dated 1st April 2002 by the respondent No. 1 and all subsequent proceedings arising from it. The respondent No. 3 was advised to approach the appropriate Government having jurisdiction over Kanpur if she wished to seek redressal.

Conclusion
The court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Government of NCT of Delhi lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appropriate Government to deal with the dispute was the one having jurisdiction over Kanpur, where the respondent No. 3's employment was transferred.